Student Life Archives

Call it Disney World, call it the happiest place on earth, call it whatever you want, but St. Louis is and will always be a sports town. True, St. Louisans and Midwesterners are nice people, but they are also diehard sports fans. They may applaud good play, they may pat the players on the back and say, “Get ’em next time” when they fail, they may not throw batteries and beer bottles at opposing players, but they still love their teams. Maybe St. Louis fans should let a player know when he is in a slump, but how many players use jeers from fans as motivation? Why do St. Louis players always talk about how great the fans are? Why don’t Philadelphia fans do the same?

As a native of St. Louis and an avid Rams, Cardinals and Blues fan, I am getting sick and tired of these East Coasters and Southerners coming to St. Louis and criticizing the mild-mannered fans of St. Louis sports. Earlier in the year Taylor Upchurch criticized Rams fans for being quiet on a defensive third and long in the third quarter of a pre-season game. Newsflash! Pre-season games are scrimmages in front of 50,000 people. And in most cities, 50,000 fans are more than teams get for regular season games. St. Louis fans realize that these games are worthless.

Which brings up another good point: St. Louis fans know their stuff. When J.D. Drew, arguably the Cardinals’ best hitter, lays down a successful sacrifice bunt, he is applauded, not booed for making an out. When it is fourth and seven on the Rams own 35-yard-line, with the Rams down three with nine minutes to play (a rare occurrence), the dome does not erupt in chants of “GO! GO! GO!”

St. Louis sports fans also appreciate good players. Mark McGwire stayed in St. Louis after hitting 70 home runs because he loved the fans who loved him.

The fans continued to support him when he struggled in his final season. Tino is struggling this season, but the fans are patient. They know he will come around. Kurt Warner has earned the title of hero and he is treated thusly. If you don’t think St. Louisans can despise sports figures, ask any one of them what they think of Brett Hull or Bill Bidwell.

Maybe it is not that St. Louis sports fans are nice, but that their teams are successful. The point was raised that the Cardinals “struggled” last summer on their way to a division title and a game seven loss to the eventual world champions in the NLCS. The Rams also “struggled” in a Super Bowl loss. Not only are the Rams and Cardinals successful year-in and year-out, but the Blues have made the playoffs in 23 consecutive years. Maybe it is just that St. Louis fans have nothing to be upset about.

So we don’t throw things at players. Our bad. They probably deserve to get struck by a beer bottle thrown by some drunken idiot who doesn’t know the difference between holding and intentional grounding. We’ll work on that.

And don’t ever think that St. Louis fans don’t get upset. When the Cardinals lost in the bottom of the ninth of game seven of the NLCS, I broke a number of items in my room. I get upset when the Blues make an early exit from the playoffs every year. I was fuming when the Rams lost in the Super Bowl-but I didn’t go start a riot. Maybe what reassured me is the fact that next year the Rams will be favorites to win the Super Bowl, the Blues will make the playoffs (again), and the Cardinals will be projected to meet the Yankees in the World Series (which they will win in six, by the way).

What I see as the motivation behind this column is jealousy. Jealous over the fact that you don’t live in a city with three playoff contenders; jealous that your city is not the “Best Sports Town in America;” jealous that the guy sitting two seats over doesn’t pocket the change from your ice cold Budweiser. Maybe instead of criticizing the St. Louis fans for being too nice, you should criticize the battery throwers in Philadelphia for not respecting their athletes.

Who would YOU rather play for?

In 1970 Washington University students burned down the ROTC building to protest America’s involvement in the Vietnam War. The ROTC moved off campus, where it remains 33 years later. But even if it were on campus, its 105 participants (about a third of whom attend WU) wouldn’t have anything to worry about. College students are more complacent now, and though WU’s ROTC chapter contradicts the university policy on discrimination, nobody seems to care.

The ROTC uses the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that the U.S. military implemented in the Clinton years: as long as you don’t discuss your homosexuality, you’re allowed to be in the ROTC. If evidence of your homosexuality somehow surfaces-if you’re seen kissing someone of the same sex downtown or reading Out magazine in your room or caught in some other compromising situation at any time of the day or night-you will be kicked out of the ROTC. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” obviously applies only to homosexuals. Homosexual activity merits getting kicked out, but heterosexual activity does not; the ROTC discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.

WU promotes its ROTC chapter as a student activity in its admissions material, and it supports ROTC by holding and dispensing the money that ROTC students receive from the government for their service. But WU, according to its anti-discrimination policy, “administers all programs without regard to race, color, age, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, veteran status or disability.” WU’s ROTC chapter is a clear violation of this policy.

Last month when the School of Law faculty voted 12 to 11 to withhold Loan Repayment Assistance Program funds from graduates who serve in the Department of Defense, suggesting that the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is inconsistent with the school’s non-discrimination policy, Dean Joel Seligman reversed the decision. He said that the issue came down to the choice between helping students pay off their student loans and trying, most probably in vain, to battle the mighty Department of Defense, which has bigger fish to fry than the WU School of Law.

But undergraduate opposition to the homophobic policy of the campus ROTC might be a different story. College shouldn’t be about maintaining the status quo; we should be challenging old convictions and working towards new solutions. It seems, or should seem, ridiculous that WU condones an organization that considers out-of-the-closet homosexuals unfit to represent our country through military service. Does the financial assistance and character-building with which the ROTC provides its 36 WU participants justify supporting a group that asks its gay participants to keep their mouths shut about their sexuality? What kind of message does WU send to its gay students by supporting such an organization?

Let’s not burn down the ROTC building. It would be too much trouble, we’d need to organize carpools to even get there to start the fire, and it’s not our generation’s style, anyway. But we can and should be vocal and loud in our criticism of WU for the hypocrisy and unfairness it exhibits by supporting a program with an anti-gay policy.

On April 2nd, the current president of Argentina, Eduardo Duhalde, marked the 20th anniversary of the Falkland Islands war by declaring, “[The Falkland Islands] are ours and we’re going to recover them… We’ll do it not by going to war but with solidarity and the support of our sister nations that have long supported our claims.” This declaration is reminiscent of one made 20 years ago by the military dictator of Argentina, General Leopoldo Galtieri when he declared war against Britain in an attempt to reclaim the Falkland Islands. This move was made entirely in the spirit of rousing nationalist sentiment amongst Argentines in the closing stages of the “dirty war” which claimed the lives of 30,000 people. In an economically ravaged country plagued by hyperinflation and a mounting deficit, Galtieri’s attempt to reclaim the islands only won him the loss of 700 Argentine lives and international embarrassment.

So what exactly has changed in Argentina over the last 20 years? The military dictatorship came to an end, and the successful transition of power amongst democratically elected presidential candidates has been maintained to this day. Under Carlos Menem, the country underwent radical economic reforms, which privatized all state owned industries, removed protectionist tariffs, and pegged the peso to the dollar. All of these reforms made Argentina the “jewel” of the reform packages prescribed by the IMF for many countries across Latin America.

Yet in the last four years, Argentina has experienced a severe recession which has ravaged the social and political structure of the country. In December, Fernando de la Rua resigned his post as president as riots and protests spread throughout the country due to the capital restriction he imposed on citizens’ bank accounts. In the ensuing two weeks, Argentina’s presidential post changed hands five times.

In the last four years, the world’s perception of the economic packages prescribed by the IMF has completely changed. We now know that economic reforms are not enough. These superficial changes to an economy cannot be sustained without the implementation of the reforms within the context of the culture of the country, and without the strengthening of institutions. Argentina was once the seventh- wealthiest country in the world, priding itself on its vast natural resources, including beef, gold and the most fertile soil in the world. Argentines have been able to maintain this attitude of “wealth” throughout the last 100 years without actually adapting their economy to internationally competitive standards.

Establishing strong institutions is the other ingredient in the recipe for economic success, as many of you who have read Douglass North’s work may well know. The corruption which has plagued Argentina can be seen from the resignation of the vice president, Chacho Alvarez (who was caught last year bribing members of the Supreme Court) all the way down to the daily lives of every Argentine (who can pay his or her way out of just about any encounter with the law). By establishing more efficient and incorruptible courts, politicians, and police officers, Argentina would be in a much more suited position to pursue economic success.

In the last few months, the economic situation has become even more severe. This makes me question why Duhalde has chosen this moment in history to pursue the reclamation of a land that Argentina has not held since 1833. Facing the default on a $513 billion loan, the decreasing value of the peso, the increasing poverty line, mass emigration, increasing crime, and the unemployment rate at well over 25%, Duhalde seems to have enough to take care of at home. Many Argentines are currently griping that the United States and the IMF have abandoned them by not granting any more loans. In reality, the only thing they have demanded of the Argentines is a viable economic plan, which as of yet they have been unable to formulate. In light of the current economic crisis, perhaps Duhalde should learn from the failures of his predecessors and pursue reform through policy instead of nationalist sentiment.

In December of 2001, the National Drug Intelligence Center (the name itself is unnerving, isn’t it?) released a report entitled “Drugs and the Internet: An Overview of the Threat to America’s Youth.” The report’s stated purpose is to focus government attention on websites that “promote or facilitate the production, use and sale of MDMA [ecstasy], GHB and LSD.” While this proposal is innately terrible because it furthers our government’s tyrannical war on drugs, the most frightening aspect of the report is not revealed by a perfunctory glance at its summary. Within a section entitled “The Nature of the Threat,” several groups are tagged for closer government scrutiny. These groups include drug offenders, anarchists, pedophiles, people who push for an expanded freedom of expression and individuals or groups who are interested in altering or abolishing drug control laws. I find it disturbing that three of the five groups mentioned are considered a threat by the United States federal government not for any illegal activity, but because they hold beliefs that run counter to government policies.

This report is just part of the ever growing hole in our constitutional rights caused by the drug war (this “war on terrorism” isn’t helping matters much either). Will we now also sacrifice the First Amendment to wage an ineffective war? The Fourth Amendment is already a mere figment of our imagination. A police officer can justify a search of your person, property or effects simply by saying he smelled marijuana, and we have random police checkpoints where your car can be pulled over and searched for drugs without any grounds for suspicion. To make matters worse, if the police believe you may be an armed drug dealer, they can bust down your door without warning. Case in point: a paid informant told police that he had bought drugs from 84-year-old Annie Rae Dixon’s house. The informant had lied, but the police raided the house anyway and fatally shot the bedridden Annie Rae.

I am not shocked that our government has stooped to this level; government monitoring of “subversive” elements of society has been going on for years. Jay Edgar Hoover, for example, had secret files on everyone from Martin Luther King, Jr. to John Lennon. What does surprise me is the broad scope of organizations this report accuses of being threats to America’s youth. Millions of Americans favor some reform to our current drug laws. Are these people all enemies of the state? While the report does not call for any immediate legal action against any groups or websites, the last section makes it clear that the NDIC will continue to monitor these websites and release future reports. I have no fear that the government will be coming to round up dissenters anytime soon, but this report is just one more indication that Big Brother is watching (and reading). We must remain ever vigilant against our own government, lest one day the secret state police do come knocking looking for those who dare to disagree with the state.

For those who believe my rantings are simply paranoid, consider the Weimar Republic. In 1920, no one would have believed that this liberal government would eventually become the seat of power for one of the most violent dictators ever, but it happened. It happened because no one believed it could.

During the 2000 presidential election, Ralph Nader argued that Republicans and Democrats were exactly the same. On more than one occasion he said, “The only difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush is the speed with which they drop to their knees when the special interests coming calling.” This rhetoric won over much of America’s youth (most of whom were too young to remember what life was like under a Republican President) and elated the Bush campaign who’s strategy it was to blur the vast differences that did, in fact, exist between the two candidates. Democrats, however, were outraged. Now we’re seeing why.

Since coming to office, Bush has advertised himself as moderate and governed as an extremist, shocking independent voters who expected a “compassionate conservative.” As for Nader, he now denies he ever meant to say Bush and Gore were the same. The fact of the matter is, Bush’s record to date has rendered the notion that there are no substantive differences between Republicans and Democrats utterly ridiculous. For starters, President Clinton’s administration was filled with public servants, policy experts and average citizens. The Bush administration, on the other hand, is essentially a corporate entity. Andrew Card, his Chief of Staff, was a lobbyist for General Motors. Vice President Cheney was CEO of Halliburton Oil. Don Evans, Bush’s Commerce Secretary, headed an oil and gas exploration company. Linda Fisher, Bush’s choice for the number two job at the EPA, was a Monsanto executive. Whereas Clinton was applauded for forming a cabinet that “looked like America,” twelve of Bush’s thirteen-member cabinet are multi-millionaires.

As President, Bush has received criticism from Democrats for favoring business interests over the environment. When polling data showed the public agreed, Bush began speaking from national parks. Recently, he defended his commitment to fight global warming by displaying fuel-efficient cars on the White House lawn. Bush’s actual record, however, contradicts the message these images are designed send. After ten days in office, Bush pulled out of the 1997 Clinton/Gore negotiated Kyoto Treaty on global warming. Bush’s 2001 budget cut the research funding for fuel-efficient cars and renewable energy by 80%. Bush also slashed EPA’s budget by $500 million. Bush’s Undersecretary of the Interior doesn’t believe in recycling. His Deputy of the Interior was a lobbyist for the oil and coal industry.

The Bush tactic of feigning support for popular policies and then deceptively undermining them is evident throughout his administration. For example, Democrats accused Bush of not supporting the Clinton administrations lawsuit against tobacco companies that marketed cigarettes to children. Despite the fact that Attorney General Ashcroft had opposed the suit while in Congress, Bush publicly maintained he supported it. But then, when the Justice Department determined it needed $44 million to continue the litigation, Bush allocated only $1.1 million. This move enraged groups like Tobacco Free Kids, but gratified administration officials such as Ted Olson, Bush’s Solicitor General to the Supreme Court who, prior to joining Bush, had made millions representing tobacco companies in court.

Bush also closed the Clinton-created White House office for Women’s Health Initiatives, gutted the White House AIDS office, blocked funding for federal stem cell research and refused to allow companies to manufacture cheaper, generic versions of prescription drugs (incidentally, Mitch Daniels, Bush’s Budget Director, used to be a lobbyist at Eli Lilly, a giant pharmaceutical company). Bush also says he supports “working families.” One has to wonder, then, why he terminated a program that provided childcare to low-income families moving from welfare to work, opposes raising the minimum wage, and has slashed $700 million in funds to repair public housing.

Why is Bush cutting these popular social programs? The answer is simple: to pay for the $2 trillion tax cut (43% of which goes to the wealthiest one percent of Americans) he rammed through Congress before the Democrats took control of the Senate. He also needs cash for his proposed $375 billion (that’s $375,000 million) defense budget. If Bush gets his way, the United States will have a larger military budget than every other country in the world combined (while in office, Clinton cut defense spending dramatically). Incredibly, Bush has sought an additional, massive tax cut-this time $50 billion for corporations (which he says is needed to fight the war on terrorism)-and the only thing stopping him is Senate Democrats.

The Democratic Party may not be anti-establishment enough for some, but it’s the only political entity strong enough to do battle with the ever-growing, Bush-led conservative juggernaut. Republicans began last year controlling the Presidency, the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Supreme Court and a majority of state Governorships. They achieved this power by convincing the 220 million Americans who are not registered Republicans they don’t favor the rich and powerful, at least anymore than Democrats do. That is an egregious lie and those committed to liberal causes-fairer distribution of wealth, universal health care, a cleaner environment, and higher quality education-must stop making the people fighting for those things the enemy. To all the Independents, Greens, and Socialists I say, work with the Democrats, not against them. Republicans have become too powerful and at this point, nothing short of a united coalition of progressive interests can stop them. So let’s stop fighting with one another and concentrate on the real enemy. Liberals: let’s roll.

It is the morning of May 2 and you have one calculus final to go. By your luck, it is one of the last exams of the academic year. So, while many of your friends have packed up their bags and high-tailed it back to their homes throughout the nation, you are stuck at your desk cramming the Taylor Series into your exhausted gray matter. Oh, and by the way, you have to clear out your room, pack up all your earthly possessions and vacate the premises by the next day.

As stated on its website, the Office of Residential Life will shut down all card access into university housing at 5 p.m. on May 3. By that time, ResLife expects that all students to have made the proper arrangements and left their rooms for the year.

But this requirement brings with it a myriad of problems that show just how little the individuals at ResLife are in contact with the students in their power.

The academic year does not end until May 3, which means that though final exams end for most schools on May 2, you could be one of the unlucky individuals who must take an exam on May 3. Those students who have exams then are faced with the pressure of both having to vigorously study and at the same time ensure that all their things are in order to be out of their building by 5 p.m. on the same day. A final alone is a dizzying experience. Add to it the stresses of moving out, and overall, anyone with an exam on May 3 better be prepared for one of the most frustrating days of his or her life.

So why does ResLife set this as the lockout date? Do they not realize that finals are some of the most stressful, sleep-depriving and all together most life-draining experiences of the year and that students do not need any more pressures put upon them at this time? Do they really have to add further the anxiety of being evicted from their homes?

The end of the year stands as more than just a blur of hours spent at a desk battling with a semester’s worth of notes and readings, though; it is also a time of sadness and tears of parting. For seniors, graduation is a time to rejoice in having gone through probably the most enlightening and challenging four years of their lives. However, for their friends in the classes below them, the week leading up to graduation commencement on May 10 will most likely be the last time they will be able to spend time with them at Washington University.

The parting of the senior class from this university’s community is sad enough. For ResLife to steal the last week in which the senior class’s acquaintances may spend time with them seems unnecessary.

True, students may pay $30 a night to stay on campus until graduation, but to fork that kind of cash to enjoy the last moments students may share with their departing friends is nothing less than inconsiderate of ResLife for the student body.

From one point of view, ResLife can be seen as exploiting the fact that some students have a strong attachment to members of the graduating class and that they will pay exorbitant prices for the opportunity to enjoy the last few days with them before they receive their diplomas and leave the university for the last time.

Of course, ResLife may say that students who stick around campus without the responsibilities of classes or having to work are prone to cause mischief. Such an argument is valid, but when one weighs this concern against the emotional concerns associated with spending the final days of college with friends whom one may not see for extended periods of time, it quickly becomes obvious that this concern needs to take a back seat to the more important concern in this issue.

So as the year comes to a close and individuals at ResLife consider improvements for the coming year, they may want to think about extending the departure date. As it stands, it puts an unfair strain upon both those students who have exams on the same day, as well as upon those who hope to spend the last moments with seniors moving away and beyond WU after graduation.